Coupling Empirical Bayes and Akaike’s Bayesian Information Criterion to Estimate Aquifer Transmissivity Fields

In this work, an empirical Bayes method was applied to estimate highly parameterized transmissivity fields in 2D aquifers under conditions of steady flow. The Bayesian inverse procedure was coupled with the Akaike’s Bayesian information criterion to identify both the main transmissivity field and the hyperparameters of the prior distribution. The forward problem, solved with a version of MODFLOW, consists in computing hydraulic heads at monitoring points considering fully known boundary conditions, and the transmissivity field. As for the required observations for the inverse problem, the monitored hydraulic head data were used. Due to the nonlinear relationship between the observed data (hydraulic heads) and the unknowns (log transmissivity values in each finite difference cell), the inverse approach is based on a successive linearization method coupled with an adjoint state methodology. At the end, the posterior distribution of the unknowns allows quantifying their uncertainty. The methodology was tested on a well-known literature case study consisting of a confined aquifer, with both Dirichelet- and Neumann-type boundary conditions and considering different degrees of heterogeneities. The inverse approach showed robust, efficient results fully consistent with other methods available in the literature. The methodology was implemented in a free and user-friendly code named ebaPEST.

[1]  R. O'Neill.  Algorithm AS 47: Function Minimization Using a Simplex Procedure , 1971 .

[2]  Ernest M. Weber,et al.  ROLE OF MODELS IN GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT , 1972 .

[3]  Hirotugu Akaike,et al.  Likelihood and the Bayes procedure , 1980 .

[4]  S. Gorelick.  A review of distributed parameter groundwater management modeling methods , 1983 .

[5]  P. Kitanidis,et al.  An Application of the Geostatistical Approach to the Inverse Problem in Two-Dimensional Groundwater Modeling , 1984 .

[6]  A. Tarantola.  Inverse problem theory : methods for data fitting and model parameter estimation , 1987 .

[7]  John M. Mulvey,et al.  Contaminated groundwater remediation design using simulation, optimization, and sensitivity theory: 1. Model development , 1988 .

[8]  E. Crestaz,et al.  Industrial chemical plant pollution study and reclamation measures assessment by groundwater modelling , 1994 .

[9]  D. A. Zimmerman,et al.  A comparison of seven geostatistically based inverse approaches to estimate transmissivities for modeling advective transport by groundwater flow , 1998 .

[10]  X. Sanchez‐Vila,et al.  Groundwater modelling in urban areas as a tool for local authority management: Barcelona case study (Spain) , 1999 .

[11]  T. Ulrych,et al.  A full‐Bayesian approach to the groundwater inverse problem for steady state flow , 2000 .

[12]  A. Journel,et al.  Correcting the Smoothing Effect of Estimators: A Spectral Postprocessor , 2000 .

[13]  Tadeusz J. Ulrych,et al.  A Bayes tour of inversion: A tutorial , 2001 .

[14]  A. Woodbury,et al.  Geostatistics and Bayesian Updating for Transmissivity Estimation in a Multiaquifer System in Manitoba, Canada , 2002, Ground water.

[15]  Yefang Jiang,et al.  Full‐Bayesian Inversion of the Edwards Aquifer , 2004, Ground water.

[16]  Y. Mitsuhata.  Adjustment of regularization in ill‐posed linear inverse problems by the empirical Bayes approach , 2004 .

[17]  J. Yamamoto.  Correcting the Smoothing Effect of Ordinary Kriging Estimates , 2005 .

[18]  A. W. Harbaugh.  MODFLOW-2005 : the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model--the ground-water flow process , 2005 .

[19]  Yefang Jiang,et al.  A full-Bayesian approach to the inverse problem for steady-state groundwater flow and heat transport , 2006 .

[20]  G. Ferguson,et al.  Ground surface paleotemperature reconstruction using information measures and empirical Bayes , 2006 .

[21]  Tom Clemo,et al.  MODFLOW-2005 Ground-Water Model - User Guide to the Adjoint State Based Sensitivity Process (ADJ) , 2007 .

[22]  H. H. Franssen,et al.  A comparison of seven methods for the inverse modelling of groundwater flow. Application to the characterisation of well catchments , 2009 .

[23]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Role of model selection criteria in geostatistical inverse estimation of statistical data‐ and model‐parameters , 2011 .

[24]  M. Fienen,et al.  MODFLOW‐Style Parameters in Underdetermined Parameter Estimation , 2012, Ground water.

[25]  Ajay K. Singh.  Groundwater modelling for the assessment of water management alternatives , 2013 .

[26]  Liangping Li,et al.  Inverse methods in hydrogeology: Evolution and recent trends , 2014 .

[27]  John Doherty,et al.  Approaches in Highly Parameterized Inversion: bgaPEST, a Bayesian Geostatistical Approach Implementation With PEST?Documentation and Instructions , 2014 .

[28]  J. Gómez-Hernández,et al.  Inverse sequential simulation: A new approach for the characterization of hydraulic conductivities demonstrated on a non‐Gaussian field , 2015 .

[29]  M. D’Oria,et al.  Bayesian Estimation of a Highly Parameterized Hydraulic Conductivity Field: A Study Case , 2015 .

[30]  Andrea Zanini,et al.  Contaminant source reconstruction by empirical Bayes and Akaike's Bayesian Information Criterion. , 2016, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[31]  M. Riva,et al.  Identification of groundwater flow parameters using reciprocal data from hydraulic interference tests , 2016 .

[32]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Theoretical analysis of non‐Gaussian heterogeneity effects on subsurface flow and transport , 2017 .

[33]  A. Zanini,et al.  Identification of transmissivity fields using a Bayesian strategy and perturbative approach , 2017 .

[34]  I. Butera,et al.  Cokriging Transmissivity, Head and Trajectory Data for Transmissivity and Solute Path Estimation , 2017, Ground water.

[35]  P. Renard,et al.  On the use of multiple-point statistics to improve groundwater flow modeling in karst aquifers: A case study from the Hydrogeological Experimental Site of Poitiers, France , 2017 .

[36]  D’Oria Marco,et al.  Oscillatory Pumping Test to Estimate Aquifer Hydraulic Parameters in a Bayesian Geostatistical Framework , 2018, Mathematical Geosciences.

[37]  D. Sanz,et al.  The social construction and consequences of groundwater modelling: insight from the Mancha Oriental aquifer, Spain , 2018, International Journal of Water Resources Development.

[38]  J. Gómez-Hernández,et al.  Simultaneous identification of a contaminant source and hydraulic conductivity via the restart normal-score ensemble Kalman filter , 2018 .

[39]  G. Stefania,et al.  Numerical Modeling of Remediation Scenarios of a Groundwater Cr(VI) Plume in an Alpine Valley Aquifer , 2018, Geosciences.

[40]  A. Chelli,et al.  A multidisciplinary procedure to evaluate and optimize the efficacy of hydraulic barriers in contaminated sites: a case study in Northern Italy , 2018, Environmental Earth Sciences.

[41]  A. Comunian,et al.  Hybrid Inversion Method to Estimate Hydraulic Transmissivity by Combining Multiple-Point Statistics and a Direct Inversion Method , 2018, Mathematical Geosciences.

[42]  M. D’Oria,et al.  Characterization of Hydraulic Heterogeneity of Alluvial Aquifer Using Natural Stimuli: A Field Experience of Northern Italy , 2019, Water.